THIS was the most predictable Oscars for years, for good and ill.
Good that almost all the right people went home with a small golden man. Ill in as much as the Academy showed that, in not giving the honours due to Mike Leigh's Mr Turner, and Selma, the first feature film about Dr Martin Luther King Jr, it is still predominantly male, pale, and stale.
Julianne Moore and Eddie Redmayne were both worthy winners, even if they did prove once again that the surest way to an Oscar can be via playing a character with a condition. Birdman, too, deserved its prizes for being a clever, funny, beautifully shot piece. But being the story of a washed up movie star seeking redemption on Broadway, this was another example of Hollywood indulging in its favourite hobby of gazing in the mirror. It worked for The Artist in 2011 after all.
Kudos, too, to the Academy for awarding the best documentary Oscar to CitizenFour, a portrait of Edward Snowden (one in the eye for the White House) and the superb Holocaust drama Ida.
But where were the surprises, the putting down of markers for the business?The Oscars should be about cinema's future as much as its present (or past). On that count, the Academy was remiss in ignoring David Oyelowo's performance in Selma, and Ava DuVernay's equally remarkable stint behind the camera as director. Ditto Timothy Small's performance in Mr Turner. Nor did the wonderful Boyhood, a genuine experiment in cinema filmed over 12 years, get the attention it deserved.
It was as if Hollywood was preparing for 2015, year of the blockbuster - Jurassic World, Bond, Star Wars Episode VII and all - by wanting to appear thoroughly grown up and serious-minded. Just not too grown up, and not too serious-minded.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article